Amtrak to take free onboard WiFi nationwide

Amtrak's Acela Express trains run along the Washington-Boston-New York corridor and offer two things not often seen by US rail passengers: decent speeds and free WiFi. One of those benefits could soon come to every Amtrak train nationwide. Guess which one?

Onboard WiFi has been a huge hit on the Acela trains. Amtrak announced last week that 39 percent of all Acela riders had logged onto the Internet aboard the train and that the service had given Amtrak a major competitive advantage over bus and air travel in the Northeast corridor.

Now, Amtrak wants to expand the bandwidth available to the system and hopes to extend WiFi service to its nationwide fleet. A request for proposals has just gone out to vendors, and installation should begin this autumn.

The Acela trains proved relatively easy to wire, for two reasons. First, cell phone towers in the densely populated Northeast corridor can provide a steady connection that (as I can tell you from experience) does not exist when blasting through rural New Mexico.

Second, the trains have a fixed set of cars. On other routes, Amtrak mixes car types together in different configurations, switches some between trains en route, and splits trains. Any WiFi system for such trains needs to handle this sort of shuffling without problems.

At a major rail convention in Europe this week, Amtrak talked up the success of its system and provided some details on the current Acela implementation. MuniWireless, which was at the event, provides the details:

Each train has a central system housed in a ‘brain car’ comprising up to eight data modems using all four major US cellular carriers; Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile. A 5GHz wireless network connects the brain car to the rest of the train, providing speeds of 12-22Mbps between carriages with approximately 3.5Mbps total bandwidth available for passenger Wi-Fi connections to the Internet. The bottleneck in any train-bound system will always be the backhaul, so AmtrakConnect uses a quality-of-service system that segregates passenger traffic from on-board system traffic, and uses content filtering to manage bandwidth on a per user basis and block certain material including streaming video. The on-train system is augmented by multi-megabit trackside and in-station wireless broadband that offloads traffic from the cellular connections to platform-based infrastructure when a train is at the station.

WiFi looks inescapable. Like Amtrak, airlines now commonly offer the technology in-flight, and it's starting to make its way into cars and portable 3G/4G WiFi hotspots. All the data usage is good news for cell providers, who provide most of these data connections—assuming that they can handle all the traffic.

"The bottleneck in any train-bound system will always be the backhaul, so AmtrakConnect uses a quality-of-service system that segregates passenger traffic from on-board system traffic, and uses content filtering to manage bandwidth on a per user basis and block certain material including streaming video."

Thank god. Mobile Wifi is woefully slow enough as it is without every technological boob trying to stream Netflix to their laptop, completely ignorant of the fact that they just screwed over every other passenger who wanted to use the internet (yes, I have seen this happen multiple times on Bolt Buses and Wifi-enabled Greyhound buses).

Yep. I've looked at it a few times and it can take 30 hours and $800 to do what a plane can do in 2.5 hours and $200.

Currently, trains in the US are best for mid-range trips, where a flight is short enough that a significant amount of time is spent at security and going to/from the airport. Besides that, you have a lot more leg room, and it's less carbon intensive to boot.

Yep. I've looked at it a few times and it can take 30 hours and $800 to do what a plane can do in 2.5 hours and $200.

The best reason to take a train is for the scenery. But yeah I can't deny that the price to do so is very steep. Especially since you can do it even cheaper in a car and not have to worry about delayed trains or annoying passengers.

The best reason to take a train is for the scenery. But yeah I can't deny that the price to do so is very steep. Especially since you can do it even cheaper in a car and not have to worry about delayed trains or annoying passengers.

The best reason to take a train is for the scenery. But yeah I can't deny that the price to do so is very steep. Especially since you can do it even cheaper in a car and not have to worry about delayed trains or annoying passengers.

Sounds like you don't go on many long road trips.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this, but on long car rides the annoying passengers can just be left on the side of the road.

Thank god. Mobile Wifi is woefully slow enough as it is without every technological boob trying to stream Netflix to their laptop.

Did you just call me a boob?

Trains are cool but expensive. At some point later in life I am planning to do several train road trips and just stare at the scenery outside. Having wi-fi would be cool to look up local info and such.

Compared to flying, Acela is a decent way to go if you're riding along the DC-Boston megalopolis. Flying from Logan to JFK was a complete waste of my time even before the plane was grounded for hours, and then arrived late enough that there were no express trains to shorten up the hourlong trip across Brooklyn and Queens. I took Acela back -- fewer weather issues, comfy accommodations, the only thing missing was real WiFi (not phish-o-matic "Free Public Wifi").

Other Amtrak routes... those are more for scenery. I don't see the value in WiFi.

As a side note, if you just want to get somewhere, the TGV and the ICE are a hell of a lot better, but Acela is the nicest rider experience in "high speed" rail.

Thank god. Mobile Wifi is woefully slow enough as it is without every technological boob trying to stream Netflix to their laptop.

Did you just call me a boob?

I figure they either have no idea that they're ruining the Wifi for everyone else (this is why we can't have nice things!), or else they are just incredibly selfish asses who don't mind waiting 5 minutes for 30 seconds of content to load. No need for you to self-identify with one group or another.

kyleh613 wrote:

I don't know exactly what you mean by this, but on long car rides the annoying passengers can just be left on the side of the road.

Amtrak can get me a round trip to NYC from Montreal for just over USD 100. That's cheaper than the greyhound, and definitely cheaper than flying.

It also goes from downtown to downtown.

Yeah, trains win shorter distances easily. You can't beat a plane for flying across the country, but for 300-400km trips and trips to non-major cities, you get less security to worry about, multiple stops and a (generally) more pleasant trip. Plus you can get some work done, unlike driving.

Great news. I'd love to see trains become more competitive in the US. Acela is expensive, but as @LocalYokel said, a very nice travel experience. Their standard service on the northeast corridor isn't the most reliable (then again, neither are planes) but it sure is comfortable and a lot more convenient than dealing with airports. Just not always easy to justify next to a $20 bolt bus. Regardless, I look forward to wifi on these when its available.

Yep. I've looked at it a few times and it can take 30 hours and $800 to do what a plane can do in 2.5 hours and $200.

$800? You must have been pricing a private compartment, and you're not going to get anything comparable to that on a plane for $200.

Two years ago I went to visit friends in Saskatchewan, flying from Buffalo NY to Regina SK was just over $700 about 16hrs due to layovers and all the hassle of security for international flights. Flying to Minot ND, would have been just over $500. Amtrak to Minot cost me about $300 and no security hassles. It did take longer but it was considerably cheaper and actually fairly comfortable in a normal coach seat, much more legroom than coach on a plane to be sure.

Elaborating on those:Distance - many locations in the US are a long distance from each other. The Richmond-Boston corridor, especially DC-NYC is so tightly packed, that it it enables the passenger volume to cover costs without having to charge an arm and a leg. There are plenty of stops going from point to point to enable the volume to existUnions - railroad employees have rather generous pensions (ignoring any raids that have taken place). High costs lead to higher prices. While airlines have unions, the former employees aren't as entrenched in benefits as the latter.Track ownership - Amtrak owns their NE corridor track. The rest is owned by freight and leased to Amtrak and regional carriers. This leads to higher cost (since the freights aren't going to take a loss to lease) while playing second fiddle. On freight lines, freight gets priority. That can mean multiple hour waits. Talking to a staffer on teh DC-Chicago line, she mentioned that her longest wait was once 10 hours.Economies of scale - Fewer riders means less demand for equipment and parts. That means less bulk. That means higher unit cost.Public Perception - During the glory years of aviation, flying was glamorous and train was common. Now that the airlines are flying Greyhounds, that shine has diminished. But, build up meant nice airports and dingy train stations. Airports in good locations, trains....not so much. And now that it can take 80 days to get from NYC to LA, nobody has the time to take the train long distances. And taking the train for medium or short distances means giving up the flexibility of the vehicle and paying an arm and a leg.Maintenance - Not only is a lot of the equipment aging, it is only adequately maintained. Planes generally look shiny and cool, while train cars are covered in graffiti. Airports in the US are fairly well maintained and clean, I've been in more than a few train stations that smelled like hobo piss. There are exceptions. East, West, and Main Hall at Union Station in DC will put any airport in the world to shame. The rest of the station is average, but that still makes it better than 90% of other stations.

Further ruining train travel in the future will be the invasion by TSA and the loss of nostalgia. No more bidding farewell at the tracks. You now have to be on the train two minutes before departure, with ticket sales closing five minutes before. This is better than the airlines, but I expect a slow trend towards pain.

DC to Saratoga Springs NY (near our farm) is cheaper on Amtrak than flying DC to Albany, which is another 45 miles away. This probably has something to do with the NYC to Montreal line being under utilized. It is of course a longer trip, even with the extra leg at the end factored in, but about the same as driving. We did it once and surfed the web part way with a Verizon WWAN card and had a pretty good connection. The views along the Hudson were awesome.

Now DC to San Antonio (where my uncle lives) is another story entirely, especially since it has to route through Chicago. Leave Saturday afternoon and get in Monday evening.

Tampa to Cincy is $299 one way and another 38 hours ($598 RT). I would prefer to go to Lexington, KY, but Amtrak doesn't go there. This is nearby.

Tampa to Austin is $500 one way and 80 hours ($1000 RT). That's more than three days!

Tampa to Boston is $220 one way and 30 hours ($440 RT).

That's not competitive with flying or driving, no matter how you figure it. I can fly for less in all cases. There seem to be a small number of cities along the line that runs north out of here that I can get to in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable amount of money. Outside of that, I'd be an idiot to take a train anywhere.

Yep. I've looked at it a few times and it can take 30 hours and $800 to do what a plane can do in 2.5 hours and $200.

Currently, trains in the US are best for mid-range trips, where a flight is short enough that a significant amount of time is spent at security and going to/from the airport. Besides that, you have a lot more leg room, and it's less carbon intensive to boot.

I am not so sure an Amtrak train is less carbon intensive than a jet. Jets can achieve >70 passenger miles per gallon, as they are cramped and routinely overbooked. Amtrak trains are not so loaded with people so often. Buses use the least.

Edit: For 2005 Amtrak puts the fuel use figure at about 44 passenger miles per gallon.

For Boston-NY or NY-DC Acela probably takes the same time as flying (once you've factored in time spent traveling to the airport, going through security, and traveling from the airport -- Amtrak picks you up and drops you off right in the middle of the city). It is expensive, and is delayed a decent portion of the time, though usually less than 15 minutes. That said, I have had several occasions where it was significantly delayed, including a recent 1 hour 45 minute one. There often seem to be "signaling problems" and track work (requiring them to go down to one active track at some point)...

All that said, it is very comfortable and is on time enough to be convenient. Unlike a plane, one has power outlets, comfortable seats, and can spend all your travel time just working on the computer. The WIFI is nice, though on the 3 recent occasions I've had it available I found it to be really slow. (Remember back with dialup and having to click reload multiple times for a webpage to slowly appear?) I gave up and just used 3G on my phone...

Between the general unpleasantness and the environmental footprint, I've pretty much given up on air travel. Did a cross-country trip on Amtrak last fall, it was really enjoyable. Will be putting on a couple thousand rail miles this month & looking forward to it -- wifi would be a nice addition.

I couldn't care less about the rest of the country. I want to know if this will be expanded to all Northeast corridor trains, or will it just be the Acela that gets this?

I understand why they use cell towers, but the train is connected to a giant WIRE (again, I'm only talking about the Northeast -- the rest of you immigrant-hating global-warming-denying in-bred hillbillies can go f yourselves... as if you weren't going to anyway) -- it would be nice if they came up with a longer term plan to use that big wire for better bandwidth.

Two years ago I went to visit friends in Saskatchewan, flying from Buffalo NY to Regina SK was just over $700 about 16hrs due to layovers and all the hassle of security for international flights. Flying to Minot ND, would have been just over $500. Amtrak to Minot cost me about $300 and no security hassles. It did take longer but it was considerably cheaper and actually fairly comfortable in a normal coach seat, much more legroom than coach on a plane to be sure.

I don't understand how "Buffalo->Minot" is the same as "Buffalo->Regina"? Did they end up coming to pick you up? Did you rent a car?

Just a real quick orbitz check which indeed showed an approx 2 week trip this summer from Buffalo->Regina to cost around $640+. But, a similar flight from Toronto->Regina (since you're entering Canada anyway at some point), was only $431 (direct flight - around 3 hrs each way). Assuming you rented a car from Minot->Regina, Toronto is only about 2 hours from Buffalo by car. I'm sure you could have found a train ride/bus for $50 to get you there. Meanwhile, Amtrak seems to show $225 for the round trip (plus fees/taxes?), but it's 11 hrs from Buffalo->Minot and 18 hrs back!!

Sure, if you have plenty of time, rail is sometimes cheaper. Given that I have limited number of vacation days per year, I'd prefer to only spend some of that time travelling.. my most common trip is SFO/SJC -> DTW and back - cheaper to do that, rent a car and drive 3 hours than flying right to YYZ (and still needing to get picked up or rent a car or whatever).

I used to ride Amtrak regularly from Champaign, IL to Chicago, IL. I used to bring books and DVDs for the ride, but being able to do some casual internet surfing + e-mail would have been very welcome. There were definitely times when I needed to respond to work related stuff via e-mail but had to wait until I reached the destination.

Amtrak on the NE Corridor is awesome, frequent, usually on time and (if you stay off Acela and buy in advance) not horribly expensive. If you get to a transfer point early and want to catch an earlier train, they'll change the ticket for no fee.

I can go from Baltimore to Montreal and back to Baltimore for US$140. The ride north of NYC up the Hudson River Valley is very pretty, but the ride up Lake Champlain is just stunning.

Yes, Amtrak sucks in some parts of the US. That's what happens when you cut taxes to corporations and the rich so there is no money for infrastructure then you give freight priority over people. But it is not universally sucky.

This is awesome. I don't fly and have taken Amtrak several times between Ohio and Arizona. Though I've only taken coach, next time I'm going to get a sleeper. I love taking the train, and now it's better! I've never had a problem with Amtrak, though the 8 hour lay-over in Chicago kinda sucks. But other than that, I love it.